Climate change debunker debunked

With Dr David Evans’ recent claims that climate change is not as dangerous as first thought, Sam Blacker did some further research into his findings.

I want climate change sceptics to be right.

I want it so the world might not be doomed, and so that people whose lives will be lost might not be lost. Or at the very least, if it were to happen, that it wouldn’t be our fault.

So when a “sceptic” reveals they have proof that man-made climate change is actually false, I like to check it out, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. I mean after all, everyone thought Charles Darwin was wrong when he came up with the theory of evolution…granted everyone disagreed with him for religious reasons…so maybe that’s not the best example.

But this is why after hearing Dr. David Evans’ latest claims that almost all of the scientists in the world got it wrong about man-made climate change, I thought I’d check him out.

When it comes to the big sciencey stuff, we normal people sure as hell can’t figure it out. I mean I have to make a new budget each month because I got the numbers wrong the previous month! In the realms of science, we have to trust the sciencey people.

But which ones do we believe; the 97 percent who say man-made climate change is a real threat which we need to address, or the likes of Dr. David Evans, who has done a fantastic job of marketing himself and his claims?

In the lead-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris next month, Dr Evans’ research has been making a splash about the validity of climate change.

From my determination, Dr Evans has a theory that while the earth is warming, due to a mathematical error that no other scientist has noticed in the decades it has existed, only a small fraction of that is being caused by greenhouse gases.

I couldn’t find any other recent articles when I Googled his name. And of the four listed, one says the opposite and references him once, and the other uses the term “true believers,” so I’m unsure exactly how much salt I should imbibe in the post-mortem.

What I did find though was that Dr. David Evans has actually been claiming this for years. But claiming different things. Back in 2012 he himself posted in the Sydney Morning Herald a massively long article that…I’ll be honest, I had to re-read a few times. In it he suggested that for C02 to be responsible for climate change, “the effect of the CO2 must have been amplified threefold.”

Do you know what the physics of the model is? I sure as hell don’t. But he is the science man, so he can make all the claims he likes, and honestly we can’t argue with him about it.

What we can argue, if we go into this with an open mind, is that there are some major discrepancies to take into account.

Except for the thing about the sun.

He reminds me of the lesser known fable to the boy who cried “there’s no wolf, you should just take down all the fences and walls protecting you.” It’s a longer title sure, but I learnt my lesson from it. The fences/regulations to prevent climate change will protect me/the world from the wolf/rising temperatures and waters.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists continue to claim that man-made climate change is a serious threat.

So, out of personal preference, I think I’ll listen to them over Dr. David Evans.

Sam Blacker is a radio jock at Wave FM Wollongong, but in his spare time will talk bollocks with a bit of swearing when he co-hosts the podcast Shut Up I’m Talking. Find him on Twitter @blackersam and check out the podcast at: www.shutupimtalkingpodcast.com.

Quote: ‘In it he [Dr David Evans] suggested that for C02 [sic] to be responsible for climate change, “the effect of the CO2 must have been amplified threefold.” Again, I’m not a massive mathematician, but that’s roughly 33 percent.’ End quote. Looks like your assessment of your own mathematical expertise is about right. It looks to me like Evans is suggesting the effect has been tripled (i.e. increased by 200%), and that you’re suggesting he means 33%. So your assessment of what he’s saying is about one-sixth of what he actually seems to be saying. That’s the equivalent of saying the distance from Sydney to Melbourne is about 150km. That’s not lack of mathematical expertise. It’s a kindergarten arithmetic error. None of this, of course, is to suggest that Evans is correct. But at least you could get your own interpretation of what he’s claiming correct, or your article is meaningless.